|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
The question is what IS the Universe, not what WAS it or what WILL it BE. So the answer is that the Universe IS the totality of all matter and energy everywhere as it exists NOW and involves cosmology. What it WAS and what it WILL BE are two additional questions. They DO involve time and have entirely different answers involving cosmogony.
|
|
|||
|
speedfreak is right. NOW is an interesting concept when applied to the Universe as a whole. We do not see the Universe as it is now. Because of the finite speed of light, we see nothing as it now, not even the moon. We see the moon as it was about 1.3 seconds ago, the sun as it was 8.3 minutes ago, the planet Neptune as it was about four hours ago, the nearest star other than the sun as it was 4.3 years ago, the Andromeda galaxy as it was about 2.6 million years ago, and the edge of the observable Universe as it was about 13.7 billion years ago.
|
|
|||
|
jokergirl, what is the question you feel nobody has answered yet? If it's "What is the Universe?", It seems to me that both schlaugh and I answered it. If you feel that something is missing, I urge you to explain why. Hopefully, one of us or someone else can supply whatever you sense te be lacking.
|
|
|||
|
damian 1727, you ask, "Is space/time a "thing?" The indefiniteness of the meaning of the word "thing" makes your question hard to understand. Everything is a "thing" in one sense or another. That the Universe is made up of all matter and energy is about the most that one can say in answer to the question of what the Universe is. As for a ratio between mass and energy, it's not clear to me that there is any answer to that question since special relativity reveals that both are forms of the same thing. I really don't believe that anything more can be said in answer to your question.
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis Rovers forever! - ToSeek "Carl Sagan sent a message to ET, Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song |
|
||||
|
SimUniverse - Make Your Cosmos!
Includes Planet Maker add-on, as well as Life 4.0. *MindMaker 0.6b not supported, not resonsible for loss of data, files, programs or any damage to hardware resulting from installation/use of MindMaker 0.6b with above software.* SimUniverse - Make Your Cosmos!
__________________
"The Internet is really, really great..." Avenue Q "And a disintegrator beam. People listen when you have a disintegrator beam."
mike alexander |
|
|||
im talking about background independent" theories -- ones where there is no framework of absolute time and space for particles to move against, but rather ones where space and time themselves are integral, evolving, changing parts of the cosmos, and in which there are no static things, only dynamic processes....being as there can be no outside to the universe.... ![]() |
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
Call me kooky, but as I understand it, there MUST be something outside the universe, for the matter and energy in the universe to exist.
__________________
"The Internet is really, really great..." Avenue Q "And a disintegrator beam. People listen when you have a disintegrator beam."
mike alexander |
|
||||
|
Then if energy/matter can neither be created or destroyed in our universe, then how come it is here at all?
__________________
"The Internet is really, really great..." Avenue Q "And a disintegrator beam. People listen when you have a disintegrator beam."
mike alexander |
|
|||
|
Wow, this is the most arrogant reply I have seen in a long time. Not only did you not get the reference to "42", but you think you answered the question. Correctly, even. |